IntroductionThere is growing concern about the aggressiveness of cancer care at the end of life (ACCEoL), defined as overly aggressive treatments that compromise the quality of life at its end. Recognising the most affected patients is a cornerstone to improve oncology care. Our aim is to identify factors associated with ACCEoL for patients with cancer dying in hospitals.MethodsAll adult patients with cancer who died in public hospitals in mainland Portugal (January 2010 to December 2015), identified from the hospital morbidity database. This database provided individual clinical and demographic data. We obtained hospital and region-level variables from a survey and National Statistics. The primary outcome is a composite ACCEoL measure of 16 indicators. We used multilevel random effects logistic regression modelling (p<0·05).ResultsWe included 92 155 patients: median age 73 years; 62% male; 53% with metastatic disease. ACCEoL prevalence was 71% (95% CI 70% to 71%). The most prevalent indicators were >14 days in the hospital (43%, 42–43) and surgery (28%, 28–28) in the last 30 days. Older age (p<0·001), breast cancer (OR 0·83; 95% CI 0·76 to 0·91), and metastatic disease (0·54; 95% CI 0·50 to 0·58) were negatively associated with ACCEoL. In contrast, higher Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (p<0·001), gastrointestinal and haematological malignancies (p<0·001), and death at cancer centre (1·31; 95% CI 1·01 to 1·72) or hospital with medical oncology department (1·29; 95% CI 1·02 to 1·63) were positively associated with ACCEoL. There was no association between hospital palliative care services at the hospital of death and ACCEoL.ConclusionClinical factors related to a better understanding of disease course are associated with ACCEoL reduction. Patients with more comorbidities and gastrointestinal malignancies might represent groups with complex needs, and haematological patients may be at increased risk because of unpredictable prognosis. Improvement of hospital palliative care services could help reduce ACCEoL, particularly in cancer centres and hospitals with medical oncology department, as those services are usually under-resourced, thus reaching few.

(1) Background: Current scientific evidence suggests that most cancers, including breast cancer, can be treated during pregnancy without compromising maternal and fetal outcomes. This, however, raises questions regarding the ethical implications of clinical care. (2) Methods: Using a systematic literature search, 32 clinical practice guidelines for cancer treatment during pregnancy published between 2002 and 2021 were selected for analysis and 25 of them mentioned or made references to medical ethics when offering clinical management guidance for clinicians. (3) Results: Four bioethical themes were identified: respect for patient’s autonomy, balanced approach to maternal and fetal beneficence, protection of the vulnerable and justice in resource allocation. Most guidelines recommended informing the pregnant patient about available evidence-based treatment options, offering counselling and support in the process of decision making. The relational aspect of a pregnant patient’s autonomy was also recognized and endorsed in a significant number of available guidelines. (4) Conclusions: Recognition and support of a patient’s autonomy and its relational aspects should remain an integral part of future clinical practice guidelines. Nevertheless, a more structured approach is needed when addressing existing and potential ethical issues in clinical practice guidelines for cancer treatment during pregnancy.